About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
're hearing, it was that lowest threshold. >> now, senator lindsey graham is saying there was misspelled paperwork in the form of misspelled names. which resulted in a failure to follow up these individuals. is it really possible that a simple spelling error may have caused a breakdown in the communication here? >> i -- short answer, i don't know in this case. however, i will tell you that transliteration, in particular from arabic, for example, translated to english, vice versa, at times can cause con nu confusion to the system but not a breakdown. >> the relationship between intelligence agencies here and russia and perhaps a lack of cooperation between the two. >> well, at least through my time in government, with most allied countries and even nominal allies, at the law enforcement level and intel, usually quite good. it's kind of a comrade in arms type approach. there is, however, though, martin, sometimes there are political considerations. we don't know if we have that here. but in this case, if there was something really compelling on the russian side, it brings up the question,
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going to get a lot of arguments as to
bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he sounds like pam gellar. might as well grow some gigantic boobs. >> stephanie: run-on sentence please, for
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
including john mccain and lindsey graham, they have suggested that e he should be treated as an enemy combat t combatant. let me read from the statement just released. the suspect based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant sts. we are encouraged to have our team involved and working together intelligence about how these terrible acts were committed and the possible of future attacks. a decision to not read miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests. but they go one step further, avery, and say he shouldn't be tried as a normal u.s. citizen but an enemy combatant. what do you say to senator mccain, senator graham, peter king of the house intelligence committee who all four of them have issued this statement? >> respectfully, wolf, this is an american citizen naturalized committing alleged crimes on american soil. there's no question but that this case belongs in an article three a federal district court. the federal courts in boston have an enormous experience in dealing with terrorism. i'm mystified at that kind of statement.
important to people in my state. i think lindsey graham named it well when he called the schumer- mccain. the leadership of those two gentlemen in this process has been outstanding. it was everything i wished i could see since i have been here. when this bill is passed, it it will be a reaffirmation of two incredibly american ideas. the idea we are committed to the rule of law and the idea that we are a nation of immigrants. i would argue that it is those two ideas working together that decade after decade has enabled every generation of americans to invent the future. it is our time in the 21st century to decide whether we are still up to that task, whether we can continue to invent the future not just here, but the entire world. s of tential ourselves to thesei part of moving us forward. i want to thank the people in colorado who told me on how broken immigration system is effect in their lives and their works. the cattle ranchers on the eastern point. the people working in the high- tech field. the people who are the dreamers when i was superintendent of the denver public schools. eac
us to the finish line, but also to have members like lindsey graham who overall had very little to gain from taking on a tough challenge like immigration reform, but willing to do so that he knows it is in the national interest and national security and the economy and what is right. that epitomizes all of my colleagues efforts. at the very beginning, i was not sure of the commitment of all of my colleagues. i must say they're shortly after the first few meetings, it became way too mean that there were tough moments that there was a real desire to solve a problem that has for too long gone unsolved. i salute each and every one of them. it was one of the highest moms i have had in the senate, but even in the 20 years of being a house of representatives in congress. i'm looking forward to keep in that same tenacity and commitment. our system of immigration is broken. americans know that. they want to see it fixed. this is about preserving the national security. it is about enhancing the national economy. it is about preserving an american tradition that has had an exceptional real
performed by national captioning institute] >> arizona senator john mccain and senator lindsey graham have released a statement on the image hortense -- on the importance of immigration security. some have suggested that the circumstances of the terrible tragedy is a justification for delaying or stopping the effort for comprehensive immigration reform. in fact the opposite is true. immigration reform will strengthen our nation security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and to has left. a basic function of government that our broken immigration system is incapable of accomplishing today. the status quo is unacceptable. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" and roundtable discussion on the use of surveillance cameras with ginger mccall. uel marc gerecht. and a security bill working its way through congress. and a bill that found gaps in oversight compound pharmacies across the country. at 7ington journal" live a.m. eastern on c-span. is the most expensive weapons system in the history of the united states. fighter jetanced that is to be used by the air force, the navy
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)